Hershey's chocolate "Kisses", one of its trademark products, roll out on the production line. Photograph: Copyright Corbis

Here comes Hershey. Well, maybe. Putting a fully funded offer for Cadbury on the table by the end of next week still looks a very tall order. But assume Hershey does turn up. Should Cadbury's shareholders simply cheer the appearance of a white knight that is deemed to be a better fit, culturally and commercially, than Kraft?

The size of any offer, naturally, will largely dictate the investors' response. But they should also ask a few questions about the supposed harmony between the two companies. After all, any Hershey bid would inevitably involve asking Cadbury's shareholders to accept a large slug of shares – as much as half the total value of a bid, suggest analysts.

For a start, the Hershey trust enjoys supercharged voting rights that currently give it 80% of the voting rights at Hershey for 30% of the economic interest. Dual voting structures were long ago deemed culturally abhorrent by UK institutional shareholders and most UK versions were swept away before the turn of the century. Is the Hershey trust willing to accept the principle that equal rights should attach to equal risk? Almost certainly not.

Then there's the question of who would run a combined Cadbury-Hershey. If you're a fan of Cadbury, and like the idea of continuing to invest in a pure confectionery business, you would probably wish to see Cadbury's management in the top jobs. After all, Todd Stitzer and Co are running the larger company and have greater experience outside the US, which is where the growth is. But, again, that prospect looks a very long shot.

None of which is to deny the attraction of Hershey over Kraft from Cadbury's point of view. Hershey owns the Cadbury brand in the US; the pair can compare their philanthrophic origins; and Cadbury's shareholders would gain more of the benefit of the cost savings. But let's not pretend that Hershey is without blemishes.